Objective ToevaluatethereportingqualityofChineseimagingdiagnosticaccuracystudiesbyStandardsforReporting DiagnosticAccuracyStudies (STARD)2015.Methods AticalspublishedinChina,whichoriginatedfrom ChinaBiology Medicine (CBM),ChinaNationalKnowledgeInfrastructure(CNKI)andWanfangDatabasefromJanuary12014toApril82016wereretrievedfor statisticalanalysis.Keywordswereasfollows:"Ultrasound","CT","MRI","X-ray"and"diagnosticstudy".Tworeviewersindependently screenedtheliteraturesandassessedtheincorporatedstudies.Excel2016wasusedtofigureouttheaccordancerateandSPSS (version 17.0)wasusedtoanalyzethedata.Results 152studieswerefinallyincluded.Thenumberandproportionofstudiesonimagingdiagnostic methodswere84 (55.26%)ultrasound,29 (19.08%)CT,16 (10.53%)MRI,and23 (15.13%)withthecombinationoftwoand moremethods.Thecoincidencerateandcorrespondingnumberofsingledocumentreportswereasfollows:0%－10%,1report;11%－20%,4reports;21%－30%,45reports;31%－40%,74reports;41%－50%,24reports;51%－60%,3reports;and61%－70%,1 report.Therewasnosignificantdifferenceofcoincidencerate (P＝0.09)betweendifferentimagingdiagnosticmethods.Also,there wasnosignificantdifferenceofcoincidenceratebetweentheoldentriesinSTARD2003andnewentriesinSTARD2015(P＝0.34). Conclusion ThisstudyprovidesareferencebaselinefortheresearchersandthecliniciansonthequalityofChinesetestreportson imagingdiagnosticaccuracy.Itisshowedthat,thereportsondiagnosticaccuracyofUltrasound,CT,MRIandX-raypublishedbetween January1,2014andApril8,2016aregenerally middleandlow level.

Purpose To evaluate the quality assessed by iconographic diagnostic test system using ROBIS. Materials and Methods"Diagnostic tests, system evaluation, Meta analysis, diagnoses*test, diagnoses*trial, systematic review, meta-analysis" were used as search term to retrieve relevant literatures recorded in CBM, CNKI, Wanfang Data, PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library from January. 1, 2014 to December. 31, 2016. After two independent researchers screened the literature and extracted the information, the quality of included literatures was evaluated using ROBIS. Results Totally 219 articles were included in the study, including 93 Chinese literatures and 126 English literatures. The results of subgroup analysis showed that the quality difference between Chinese and English documents was statistically significant (P=0.018); the quality difference between the Chinese literatures and those of other regions was statistically significant (P<0.001); there was no statistical significance in quality difference regarding the year of publication (P=0.34). The ROBIS evaluation results showed that there were only 15 literatures (6.85%) with low-risk, including 2 Chinese literatures and 13 English literatures. Conclusion The quality evaluated by Chinese and English diagnostic test system, which is publicly published in iconographic diagnostic test from 2014 to 2016, is generally low, and the quality of literatures published by domestic scholars and in Chinese is still behind international levels. The maker of system evaluation in this field should prepare their research plans in advance and fully report them in future research, adequately obtain evidence, minimize bias in respects of document screening, information extraction, and evaluation of original research bias, and take into account of results stability, based on which the quality of system evaluation in this field should be further improved.